Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 22:20:54 11/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 1999 at 00:52:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I think that it ought to be handled as follows: If the 'disconnector' >can show that it was a network problem, the game ought to be continued as >soon as possible, just so the next round isn't delayed. The network is >very complex, and the northeast can become _very_ congested early in the >evening. The network has to be thought of as the facilitator for this >event, not something that makes it impossible to pull off. Simple way to >handle this is that each participant must supply (in their finger notes) >the IP address of their gateway (ISP) machine. If they get disconnected, >and we can ping the ISP, then they get penalized for the amount of time >they are 'offline'. If the ISP can't be pinged then we assume it is not >a problem with the end player, but with the network, and there is no penalty >unless it goes beyond what we would term excessive (which needs to be defined). Eek. If you are lagged, you are lagged, and if you say you are lagged, I will believe it. If people are going to lie about being lagged they are going to lie about everything, and I refuse to believe that anyone is going to lie about anything. I am not going to give in to the slightest bit of paranoia. Everyone will be dead honest and all we need to do to figure out what is going on is ask people. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.